[SciPy-user] Python evangelism question: procedural programming
Fri Aug 3 14:05:06 CDT 2007
I think I found my answer:
On 8/3/07, Ryan Krauss <email@example.com> wrote:
> Thanks for all the replies. I appreciate your thoughts.
> No I have a dumb question: what is the easiest way to get him a link
> to these responses, since he obviously doesn't subscribe to this list.
> Does it take a few days to get into Gmane? Can he see the whole
> thread there easily? Is there a better way?
> On 8/3/07, Fernando Perez <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On 8/3/07, Gael Varoquaux <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 09:55:17AM -0500, Ryan Krauss wrote:
> > > > So, he wanted to know if Python could be used like Mathematica in
> > > > terms of writing rule and procedure based programs. I don't know how
> > > > difficult this would be.
> > >
> > > I think I understand what he means. Python can almost be used like this,
> > > but there is the UI missing. Ipython is currently working on a "notebook"
> > > UI that would address this problem. I have developped my own workflow
> > > using a home made script ("pyreport"
> > > http://gael-varoquaux.info/computers/pyreport/ ) to approach this
> > > workflow. Ultimately I want to merge this with ipython's effort in order
> > > to get nice notebook functionnality with html and pdf output, but
> > > xurrently I don't have time for this.
> > You better make time soon. Min has already written a plaintext dump
> > format for the notebook, you'll be getting an email about that in a
> > minute. We need you :)
> > But back to the OP, I think the issue Ryan's colleague has isn't
> > addressed by a notebook interface, nor by SAGE (as great as SAGE is).
> > Mathematica's programming model/language can be very tricky to wrap
> > your head around, but it allows you to do *phenomenal* things in very
> > concise way, that would be extremely clunky in Python or any other
> > language I can think of.
> > Mathematica is very lisp-ish in its model, and its syntax for building
> > complex programs can be quirky, and its encapsulation model is rather
> > poor. But for rule-based programming it's hard to beat, it exposes
> > every object it has in a completely uniform way so that you can do
> > abstract manipulations on them, and it has very rich transformation
> > facilities. Doing things like "take an arbitrarily nested object,
> > traverse it and replace every instance of '(x-y)^4' by a polynomial
> > over z^2" are one-liners in Mathematica.
> > Honestly I'd say that if Ryan's colleague has a lot of code like that,
> > Python is NOT the answer for him. Rather, he should learn to use
> > Python because it *complements* Mathematica very well. Python is
> > good, easy to use and convenient to work with precisely at many of the
> > things that Mathematica is clunky for. They obviously have a lot of
> > overlap, and I personally use Python where they overlap simply because
> > I'm more proficient in Python these days. I'm sure he could go for
> > Mathematica in that region for the same reasons.
> > But there is definitely a domain where Mathematica is simply
> > unbeatable, and that goes beyond the obvious triad of (notebook,
> > symbolics, easy-to-control pervasive arbitrary precision).
> > These days my working toolbox is more or less just Python+Mathematica,
> > for these very reasons (and Python obviously includes C/C++/Fortran as
> > needed for low-level/speed work).
> > HTH.
> > Cheers,
> > f
> > _______________________________________________
> > SciPy-user mailing list
> > SciPyfirstname.lastname@example.org
> > http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user
More information about the SciPy-user